Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:32 am

Going back in the 60's, 70's right up to the 2,000's pre SUV were the humble station wagon, I've owned only 1 which was a Sigma wagon back in the early to mid 80's and it was fantastic, went everywhere and could do most stuff except AWD territory, but even those where catered for with Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol and Pajero, all good wagons but it was the car style wagon I wish to talk about, in the 60's and 70's, many people that had anymore than 2 kids drove wagons, they came from the main staple at the time Falcon, Holden, Chrysler Valiant then you had the Japanese variants which were many and Australia's wagon and roomy family hacks were catered for......

I am old enough to remember those fords, holdens and valiants having grown up in the 70s.
Those cars back then were more capable over rough terrain and dirt roads. They were also heavier and towed better as a result.
Much more ground clearance and solid construction.
Nowhere near as safe for the occupants in a collision but handled rough treatment better than the low rider sedans that are available now.
My wife has a Tucson that is easier for her to get into being a bit higher (back injury). It is higher than my Swift but not a lot higher than I recall the falcons and valiants as a kid.
It was a long time ago though so perhaps my recollection is false.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:30 pm

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:32 am

Going back in the 60's, 70's right up to the 2,000's pre SUV were the humble station wagon, I've owned only 1 which was a Sigma wagon back in the early to mid 80's and it was fantastic, went everywhere and could do most stuff except AWD territory, but even those where catered for with Landcruiser and Nissan Patrol and Pajero, all good wagons but it was the car style wagon I wish to talk about, in the 60's and 70's, many people that had anymore than 2 kids drove wagons, they came from the main staple at the time Falcon, Holden, Chrysler Valiant then you had the Japanese variants which were many and Australia's wagon and roomy family hacks were catered for......

I am old enough to remember those fords, holdens and valiants having grown up in the 70s.
Those cars back then were more capable over rough terrain and dirt roads. They were also heavier and towed better as a result.
Much more ground clearance and solid construction.
Nowhere near as safe for the occupants in a collision but handled rough treatment better than the low rider sedans that are available now.
My wife has a Tucson that is easier for her to get into being a bit higher (back injury). It is higher than my Swift but not a lot higher than I recall the falcons and valiants as a kid.
It was a long time ago though so perhaps my recollection is false.

Nah ya right Warty, those Falcons, Holdens & Valiants, even the Mitsubishi Sigma wagons were pretty good in the rough stuff being rear wheel drive. The 80's were probably the best era of the wagon as they were still wagons and they handled pretty well. The Falcon wagon was a bit different to the Holden wagon due to it being built onto a Fairlane chassis, you could easily tell this where the rear door in relation to the rear wheel arch was about 4-5 inches longer. All wagons back then had heaps enough room to chuck in a mattress and sleep in it.

If i had the money It'd be hard to go past the Toyota Rav 4 Hybrid AWD or Subaru's Forrester which I think has a higher roofline than the Outback which i another worthy contender and one that still has that Station Wagon look and feel.

brumby33

Some take it further, Banning auto dealership in their community.

https://sunnysidepost.com/community-boa ... dealership

The board made clear that it opposed the auto industry from being on Northern Boulevard—and that it does not want dealerships or any other auto-related businesses to open on the stretch.

The motion read, in part: “Community Board 2 opposes the development of any auto related industry along the Northern Boulevard corridor.”

Shepard, in particular, asked the owners a number of hard-hitting questions:

“Are you aware that when children are hit by SUVs they are eight times more likely to die than when they are hit by a sedan?”

“Are you aware that 11 of the 14 children under 17 killed in New York City this year were killed by SUV, pickup and van drivers?”

Shepard also criticized the owners about their Jamaica location, claiming that they parked their vehicles on the sidewalk. She noted that illegal parking was the number one 311 complaint in community board 2.

Emilia Decaudin, a Sunnyside resident and Democratic Party District leader in Assembly District 37, said she opposed the application and that the site would be better used for housing. She said that the site should not be used by an auto dealership given the threat of climate change and how fossil fuels are a detriment to the planet’s health.

Meanwhile, Bobby Preti, a local resident and a member of Families for Safe Streets, opposed the plan. “We don’t need oversized SUVs on our streets,” Preti said, noting that a woman was recently struck and killed on 48th Street by a driver of an SUV.

Yeah Brumby, we have 1 car in this household, a Falcon wagon. Last week I had to get my partner from hospital after she broke her arm. Rode to Footscray, saw her in hospital, went to get the car and just chucked the bike in the back without even taking the front wheel off. Still more room in there too. Wagons are so practical. Years ago I had a couple of Renault wagons, a 12 and a Virage - heaps of room in the back, a great design for dropping the back seat and so useful in the city with only a 1.4l motor.

Wagons are such a practical vehicle, such a pity they are no longer so easy to get.

DS

Occasionally I have to drive my daughter's dual cab 4WD ute (which was a good vehicle for the work she did when she bought it) and it strikes me as a pretty useless car in some respects. The cargo bay floor is so high that loading some things is hard, the interior height is marginal, things end up at the front of the bay where you can't reach them, and you can't even fit a standard 2.5m bit of timber inside or much boat gear inside. For the stuff we need to cart around for the acreage or for fun (fire pumps, chainsaw, bikes, boards and sailing gear, etc) the Forester is much more practical. I know everyone is different, but given our increasingly sedentary lifestyle the fact that a dual cab 4WD ute is the top selling vehicle is just weird, as well as being bad for the environment and road safety. And then the people who buy them whine about petrol prices!

Rather than being the size and/or height on the vehicle I feel that the problem is the visibility over the bonnet and the safety of these vehicles could be improved by having a bonnet that slopes downwards to provide the motorist with better vision on the road immediately in front of them.

Another consideration is what happens when the pedestrian or cyclist his hit. What is critical is that the head strike is on a soft a surface as possible. The experts can go thru this one a lot better than me but I'm thinking if the vehicle pushes the ped forward then the head strike will be on the hard road and then there's also the risk of being run over. If the vehicle pushes the ped up in the air then there's the risk of a head strike on the hard windscreen. However if the design of the vehicle results in a head strike on the bonnet, then that's the softest of the 3 surfaces and there are even vehicles which detect the collision and pop the bonnet up a bit to make that head strike softer again.

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:16 pm

Rather than being the size and/or height on the vehicle I feel that the problem is the visibility over the bonnet and the safety of these vehicles could be improved by having a bonnet that slopes downwards to provide the motorist with better vision on the road immediately in front of them.

Another consideration is what happens when the pedestrian or cyclist his hit. What is critical is that the head strike is on a soft a surface as possible. The experts can go thru this one a lot better than me but I'm thinking if the vehicle pushes the ped forward then the head strike will be on the hard road and then there's also the risk of being run over. If the vehicle pushes the ped up in the air then there's the risk of a head strike on the hard windscreen. However if the design of the vehicle results in a head strike on the bonnet, then that's the softest of the 3 surfaces and there are even vehicles which detect the collision and pop the bonnet up a bit to make that head strike softer again.

Going back 4 decades when most bonnets of cars could be seen from the Driver's seat, the windscreen was more upright and the dash wasn't as deep. The advantages were you knew where the front of your car is, I've often scraped my front tyres in tight underground car parks coz it was hard to judge how close my tyres were to curbs in my current Corolla because the bonnet slopes down and I can't see it but in cars I had 4 decades ago, it was never a problem.
The advantage I can see is that besides being aero-dynamic, I would think that a car would be more likely to scoop up a cyclist or pedestrian and throw them on the bonnet rather than running over them. Not sure about the bulky front SUV's or Utes these days with the massive square American style grill frontage but with the smaller hatches, sedans and some smaller SUVs I'd say would be safer and the metal and plastics on todays cars would be better to avoid injury in lower speed collisions.

Modern rear visibility is woeful. My 20 year old Magna wagon has a huge amount of glass with excellent visibility all round. Reversing is easy even for its length. But rear visibility out of my 2021 Kia Cerato hatch is appalling. Modern sloping rooflines may look snazzy but are rubbish for seeing out of when reversing and checking behind you etc. Which makes a rear camera vital, not an optional extra.

Parent of pedestrian killed by reckless driver asks

Ainslie Drewitt-Smith and Nick Rheinberger on ABC online wrote:….for a change in language around fatal crashes.

She said they should not be referred to as "accidents" but instead "vehicular homicide" or "vehicular manslaughter".

"Every time someone says my daughter was killed in an accident it is really hard to hear, because she was walking along the street with her friends … doing the right thing," Ms Ruge said.

"It wasn't an accident — it was an act of stupidity.

"A car is a lethal weapon when it's driven like that."

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 14, 2022 12:44 pm

Parent of pedestrian killed by reckless driver asks

Ainslie Drewitt-Smith and Nick Rheinberger on ABC online wrote:….for a change in language around fatal crashes.

She said they should not be referred to as "accidents" but instead "vehicular homicide" or "vehicular manslaughter".

"Every time someone says my daughter was killed in an accident it is really hard to hear, because she was walking along the street with her friends … doing the right thing," Ms Ruge said.

"It wasn't an accident — it was an act of stupidity.

"A car is a lethal weapon when it's driven like that."

Yes and there's no real argument against that logic, calling it an accident is almost like just calling it a mishap or an incident.

Cars themselves cannot just drive like maniacs and run off the road and kill someone, it requires a nutjob behind the wheel who usually cannot comply with road rule limits.
How many vehicles in the past 12 Months had somehow found themselves wrapped around a tree or pole, how many cars have found themselves in somebody's living room/ bedroom/yard/swimming pool and that's just in Australia, they just don't do that by themselves, again, it's the nutjob behind the wheel.
Same with trucks over turning and losing their loads, again, it's not driving to the conditions, not securing the load properly or not maintaining equipment, it's not the truck that does it, it's the driver/operator. I've driven semi-trailers myself and you don't go around corners like a car if you want to keep upright.

So yeah, I agree with the parent of deceased pedestrian, it's vehicular Homicide or Manslaughter, nothing less and for those morons who threaten cyclists with their vehicle, it should be attempted vehicle homicide, nothing less!!
No-one has the right to threaten another person with a motor vehicle and it should be a minimum sentence of 10 years for hit n run even if the person survives and loss of license for at least 15 years.

It's not the cops who give out these menial sentences, it's the judicial system, bet your life if it was their relative, it'd be a different story.

brumby33

The problem with such language is that it is defining the type of fault prior to a conviction. Once convicted that language can be used.

Prior to conviction I'd like to see the term collision replace the term accident as accident implies it was something beyond ones control and we don't know that prior to the assessment.

I'd also like to see the term car replaced with motorist as the term car seems to imply that the vehicle is potentially at fault rather than the person driving the vehicle.

The pedestrian was involved in an accident with a car vs
The motorist collided with the pedestrian in their XC Falcon

A shift in language while not obvious, will eventually result in less road deaths

Agree. Accident is not the word for motor vehicle crashes. They are mostly too serious to be dismissed as an ‘oopsie’. It’s only semantics, but as important a distinction as ‘responsibility to give way’ vs (the non existent) ‘right of way’

After all we never use the phrase ‘passed away’ when someone dies in a violent way (crash or murder), it’s reserved for health related natural causes

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 14, 2022 2:43 pm

The problem with such language is that it is defining the type of fault prior to a conviction. Once convicted that language can be used.

Prior to conviction I'd like to see the term collision replace the term accident as accident implies it was something beyond ones control and we don't know that prior to the assessment.

I'd also like to see the term car replaced with motorist as the term car seems to imply that the vehicle is potentially at fault rather than the person driving the vehicle.

The pedestrian was involved in an accident with a car vs
The motorist collided with the pedestrian in their XC Falcon

A shift in language while not obvious, will eventually result in less road deaths

From what I see the only change in language after conviction is to language that makes the perpetrator of a crime into a victim that requires sympathy [/rant]

One language change I'd like to see cyclists and the cycling media adopt is to use "coward's pass" or "coward's pass AKA punishment pass" instead of "punishment pass"...it describes the driver's manoeuvre as what it truly is

There was some coverage last year in the UK of a "Code of Practice" for Journalists reporting on road traffic incidents and has suggestions for changes in the use of language...worth a read

https://www.rc-rg.com/guidelines

"Every 20 minutes someone is killed or seriously injured on UK roads. Much of the reporting around these incidents portrays collisions as unavoidable, obscures the presence of certain actors or omits crucial context as to why crashes happen and what we can do to prevent them.
These Guidelines were produced in consultation with road safety, legal, media and policing organisations and individuals, to supplement professional codes of conduct and support the highest standards of reporting in broadcast, print and online."

Google seems to show me that Vic police have adopted something similar in their press releases but most of the Aus' online press media continue to use accident and describe collisions as involving driverless cars

All mobile speed camera warnings back in New South Wales from January 1 after public outrage
Apparently, it's sooo-unfair to expect NSW motorists to drive at or below the speed limit

Minister for regional transport and roads Samuel Farraway said it was unacceptable drivers were sometimes being tricked by cameras hidden behind poles or trees.

Tricked! Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

The NRMA has previously campaigned against removing warning signs, arguing they are an important educational tool, especially as the signs normally display the speed limit where they are operating.
"This helps reduce confusion, as drivers often find themselves in areas where they may not be aware of the speed limit, or where the speed limit changes frequently," the NRMA said.

Apparently ignorance is a valid excuse if you're driving.

Part of the reason they were removed was the danger posed to the operators when installing. Walking down the road carrying the sign in an area where obviously speeding occurs. I’m not sure whether all these locations are dangerous, but next to busy roads isn’t exactly safe.

I see no issue with them only using the roof mounted, remote actuated signs. They are easy enough to see from plenty of distance. If you can’t see the one on the roof, you probably aren’t going to se me the kerbside sign either.

I do wonder if the total number of fines has increased with the number of camera cars. After all shouting about a 50% increase in fines with the same number of cameras is quite different to a 50% increase in fines with 2x the cameras. I’ve seen a lot more locations being ‘monitored’ this year than previous years. My favourite is the camera parked on Hillsborough Rd in the morning peak as a log queue of cars crawl past at 20.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:09 pm

All mobile speed camera warnings back in New South Wales from January 1 after public outrage
Apparently, it's sooo-unfair to expect NSW motorists to drive at or below the speed limit

Minister for regional transport and roads Samuel Farraway said it was unacceptable drivers were sometimes being tricked by cameras hidden behind poles or trees.

Tricked! Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

The NRMA has previously campaigned against removing warning signs, arguing they are an important educational tool, especially as the signs normally display the speed limit where they are operating.
"This helps reduce confusion, as drivers often find themselves in areas where they may not be aware of the speed limit, or where the speed limit changes frequently," the NRMA said.

Apparently ignorance is a valid excuse if you're driving.

It is said that this was becoming an election issue, the threat of being voted out certainly drives change.

Speed limits would be easier if they were a uniformly lower level - rather than 50-60-70 etc. 30/50 would be fine.

Meanwhile, the “why” of speed. Again
Lower speed limits don’t just save lives – they make NZ towns and cities better places to live
The Conversation, November 17, 2022 5.49am AEDT
Simon Kingham, University of Canterbury

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 27, 2022 6:50 pm

Interesting video! I had never heard of the Stroad concept but it makes sense.

I can only imagine the day when parramatta road becomes a nice stretch to cycle, walk, or take an alternative form of transport to the car. Wishful thinking though.

Motorways bankrupting cities

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:42 pm

Motorways bankrupting cities

While it's hard to argue with the bloke's passion and intent, it's equally hard to listen to the snarkiness as he glosses over the intent of the US Highway system as Eisenhower signed into being. It really was an impressive undertaking, and the likes of GM just jumped on the bandwagon for purposes that had little to do with the reality of the day.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:27 am

While it's hard to argue with the bloke's passion and intent, it's equally hard to listen to the snarkiness as he glosses over the intent of the US Highway system as Eisenhower signed into being. It really was an impressive undertaking, and the likes of GM just jumped on the bandwagon for purposes that had little to do with the reality of the day.

That viewpoint glosses over the way the motor industry lobbied government, and continues to do so, for road infrastructure spend. They know full well that building more roads induces more demand for their product. In fact, they depend on it.

And the other thing is the lack of any kind of high speed rail transportation aside from Acela in the USA, and it only runs on a particular corridor.

They tested the ICE1 from Germany and if adopted it would have been built locally. But it didn't go further. Meanwhile in Europe rail is an efficient and easy way to get about. The train goes close to where you need to go, unlike airports which are usually outside of the city.

We are somewhat similar aside from the HSR that arrives every four years right on time.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:36 am

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:27 am

While it's hard to argue with the bloke's passion and intent, it's equally hard to listen to the snarkiness as he glosses over the intent of the US Highway system as Eisenhower signed into being. It really was an impressive undertaking, and the likes of GM just jumped on the bandwagon for purposes that had little to do with the reality of the day.

That viewpoint glosses over the way the motor industry lobbied government, and continues to do so, for road infrastructure spend. They know full well that building more roads induces more demand for their product. In fact, they depend on it.

Not at all. The interstate system was a done deal, with or without the motor industry lobby. That was my point. In no way or manner did I comment on the MV lobby industry beyond that example.